Question on general relativity
u334...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net
Can anyone tell me if general relativity explains why
gravity follows the inverse square law or simply uses it
to derive the field equations.
Also, will any long range force in a 3 dimensional universe
follow a inverse square law?
u could e mail me at pathin...@netscape.net
thanks
--
Sent by pathintegralz from netscape within field net
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
Chris Hillman
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 u334...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if general relativity explains why
> gravity follows the inverse square law
It doesn't-- in fact, there is no "gravitational force law" at all in gtr!
Who told you otherwise?
> or simply uses it to derive the field equations.
It doesn't do anything remotely like that. Who told you otherwise?
For a very readable discussion of the most elementary route to the EFE,
the one taken by AE himself, see Gravitation, MTW, Freeman, 1973.
> Also, will any long range force in a 3 dimensional universe
> follow a inverse square law?
Of course not--- you can invent all kinds of long-range forces. Note that
any force law of the form
F = G M m/r^p
will be -nonrelativistic-, because it says that changes in the
distribution of mass at the source will -instantly- affect the
gravitational force felt by any other mass in the universe. Newton
himself pointed out that this was an objectionable feature of his theory.
Furthermore, many classical mechanics textbooks include problems in which
the reader is invited to explore the consquences of using some p other
than p. The results are very illuminating!
Whoops, emergency system reboot, gotta go!
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE TO WOULD-BE CORRESPONDENTS: I have installed a mail filter which
deletes incoming messages not from the "*.edu" or "*.gov" domains, but
also deletes messages from some bad actors whose emails happen to be in
the "*.edu" domain and "passes" messages from a few friends with email
addresses in other domains.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Hobba
GR predicts the inverse square law at the normal energies and velocities of
Newtonian mechanics. For a valid theory it could not be otherwise as the
inverse square law has been experimentally verified to a high degree of
accuracy.
While MTW is a good book it does demand the mathematical knowledge you would
expect of a graduate math or physics student. If you do not have this
background then others may be better.
John Baez's web site has a good list. Recently John wrote a paper the
meaning of General Relativity that I was absolutely entranced with. While
aimed at people with a bit of math background and knowledge of SR and
tensors it has an excellent further reading list. You could not no better
than start there in your search on what GR is about.
Bill
Paul Stewart Snyder
seemed to me to be a good introduction to special and general relativity. It
is sometimes tough to read, and it touches on dozens of subjects from
Mandelbrot sets to Turing machines, but it is entertaining enough that you
want to read it over and over until you get what it is saying. And there is
always the classic text, Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics 2nd ed 1992.
PS
Bonnie Granat
>
<snip>
> And there is always the classic text,
Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics
2nd ed 1992.
I've bought it and plan to begin it
shortly. Would it be appropriate if I
have trouble understanding something in
it to post a question to the list? I am
perhaps worrying about having the same
experience with this book as I've had
with other texts that purported to be
suitable for a nonscientist.
--
Bonnie Granat
http://home.att.net/~bgranat
Technical Writer and Editor
http://www.artisoft.com
Paul Stewart Snyder
news:3AD139CC...@att.net...
> Paul Stewart Snyder wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > And there is always the classic text,
> Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics
> 2nd ed 1992.
>
> I've bought it and plan to begin it
> shortly. Would it be appropriate if I
> have trouble understanding something in
> it to post a question to the list? I am
> perhaps worrying about having the same
> experience with this book as I've had
> with other texts that purported to be
> suitable for a nonscientist.
Sure - but I am afraid that the short answers
that newsgroups can provide are not the best
way to get a good background. I have zero
formal training in physics, and I had to read
and reread Wheeler / Taylor many times.
In the first edition I read, they do what lots of
textbook writers do, solve only a fraction of
the examples =:-(
While it is often just as difficult to understand,
I would recommend Roger Penrose's
Emperor's New Mind. It is entertaining enough
that you want to reread it until you understand
it (don't let the formulas scare you, Penrose
correctly says you can get an intuitive feel
for what he is talking about without doing
the math).
Also John Baez mirrors Hillman's excellent site:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
You might also look at the sci.physics.research
newsgroup archives.
PS
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Paul Stewart Snyder wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > And there is always the classic text,
> Wheeler and Taylor, Spacetime Physics
> 2nd ed 1992.
>
> I've bought it and plan to begin it
> shortly. Would it be appropriate if I
> have trouble understanding something in
> it to post a question to the list? I am
> perhaps worrying about having the same
> experience with this book as I've had
> with other texts that purported to be
> suitable for a nonscientist.
Spacetime Physics is an undergraduate physics
textbook. I don't think that it is suitable
for non-scientists that don't have some
background in physics although that could be
at the high school level.
John Anderson
Chris Hillman
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Paul Stewart Snyder wrote:
> Sure - but I am afraid that the short answers that newsgroups can
> provide are not the best way to get a good background. I have zero
> formal training in physics, and I had to read and reread Wheeler /
> Taylor many times. In the first edition I read, they do what lots of
> textbook writers do, solve only a fraction of the examples =:-(
Try the problem book by Lightman et al. and the textbooks by Schutz and
D'Inverno, which have sketch solutions to the problems in the back of the
book.
> While it is often just as difficult to understand, I would recommend
> Roger Penrose's Emperor's New Mind. It is entertaining enough that you
> want to reread it until you understand it (don't let the formulas
> scare you, Penrose correctly says you can get an intuitive feel for
> what he is talking about without doing the math).
If you can find it, try Penrose's expository paper on gtr in the book
Mathematics Today, ed. by Lynn Arthur Steen, Basic Books, c. 1978. For my
money the best short exposition I've ever seen.
> Also John Baez mirrors Hillman's excellent site:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
Thanks for the kudo, but this is not a mirror--- JCB is now the sole
keeper of this website. So suggestions for improvements, corrections,
complaints, must go to him. But please don't all rush to your keyboards
at once--- he's far busier than I am, and -I- didn't have time to reply to
all the correspondence I got concerning these pages.
Frank Wappler
Bill Hobba wrote:
> GR predicts the inverse square law at the normal energies
> and velocities of Newtonian mechanics. [...]
> the inverse square law has been experimentally verified
> to a high degree of accuracy. [...]
Which, if any, is the GR definition and measurement procedure
for determining (pairwise) "velocity"?
Which, if any, are the GR definitions and measurement procedures
for determining values of the quantities that are related
to each other by "the inverse square law"?
> While MTW is a good book [...]
MTW apparently begin to address the above questions through
constructions of "clocks" and "rods", Box 16.4.
Those are based on the construction of "Schild's ladder",
Box 10.2, which in turn requires to distinguish worldlines
into those that are "geodesics", and those that are not,
and to assign "affine parametrizations" to the former.
Which, if any, are the GR procedures for those measurements?
How is to be determined in GR whether some particular worldline
is a "geodesic"; and if so, how is it to be parametrized by
real numbers (uniqely, up to linear transformations)?,
at least in principle, especially considering that "clocks"
and/or "rulers" are not yet given, but only to be constructed.
Thanks, Frank W ~@) R
david raoul derbes
I first tried to tackle Spacetime Physics at sixteen, while taking
a very good high school physics class (1967). It seemed a little
gnomic to me then, and still does. I think John's right. On the
other hand, once you've seen some physics, Taylor and Wheeler is
marvelous.
A book I like a lot for relativity for non-scientists is by Leo
Satori, "Understanding Relativity", University of California Press.
There are three other quirky books for lay people that may be
helpful, though two are out of print (you may be able to find
a copy in your library or through the internet used book dealers).
First, in print, George Gamow's "Mr Tompkins in Paperback". Not
all of the chapters deal with relativity, but many do. Next,
Clement V. Durell's "Readable Relativity". Durell was the high
school teacher of Freeman Dyson, who provided a forward to the
Harper Torchbook edition. Finally, there is Lillian Lieber's
"The Einstein Theory of Relativity", which is how D'Inverno
first learned of relativity.
It is nearly impossible to learn anything meaningful about
relativity without a willingness to tackle some mathematics.
This makes it difficult for a popularizer to describe Einstein's
work. The Great American Relativity Introduction for Lay Readers
remains to be written.
David Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
andysch
news:Z1sB6.105$E4.5011@uchinews...
<...>
> It is nearly impossible to learn anything meaningful about
> relativity without a willingness to tackle some mathematics.
That's because relativity is little more than a mathematical exercise. The
evidence for it wouldn't fill 5 pages. The best evidence, the binary pulsar
data, shows that general relativity is unlikely even to be true.
> This makes it difficult for a popularizer to describe Einstein's
> work. The Great American Relativity Introduction for Lay Readers
> remains to be written.
A real introduction to relativity would have to state clearly the unproven
assumptions, and then explain that everything else is a purely mathematical
exercise. Not many want to admit that, so you don't see many books written
that way.
Andy
and...@attglobal.net
You don't have to prove the assumptions to a theory. In
an experimental science like physics, all that is required
for a theory to be supported by experiment is that the
assumptions and any logical deductions from them not
disagree with any experiment. In fact, you can't
prove the assumptions of a theory.
Theories are never proven in physics. They are supported
by experiments or falsified by experiments. A theory
that is supported today could become falsified by an
experiment performed tomorrow.
You need to learn something about the scientific method.
John Anderson
andysch
If that were true, then every theory that is non-falsifiable would be good
physics.
GR is little more than a collection of non-falsifiable claims and a mountain
of math. The evidence is a minuscule portion of any GR course.
> Theories are never proven in physics. They are supported
> by experiments or falsified by experiments. A theory
> that is supported today could become falsified by an
> experiment performed tomorrow.
Tell me how you would falsify many of GR claims, such as that a photon has
zero rest mass or that gravity waves and black holes exist.
> You need to learn something about the scientific method.
I notice how you avoid addressing GR's assumptions and claims in your
posting. Just as every GR teacher and textbook do.
Andy
and...@attglobal.net
I agree.
> GR is little more than a collection of non-falsifiable claims and a mountain
> of math. The evidence is a minuscule portion of any GR course.
>
You CAN falsify GR. It hasn't been done yet. The predictions
of the theory have been tested. And they agree with experiment.
> > Theories are never proven in physics. They are supported
> > by experiments or falsified by experiments. A theory
> > that is supported today could become falsified by an
> > experiment performed tomorrow.
>
> Tell me how you would falsify many of GR claims, such as that a photon has
> zero rest mass
find a photon that has non-zero mass
>or that gravity waves and black holes exist.
You're missing a very important point here. No one
can prove that something doesn't exist. You can
prove that something does exist that invalidates
the predictions of a theory.
>
> > You need to learn something about the scientific method.
>
> I notice how you avoid addressing GR's assumptions and claims in your
> posting. Just as every GR teacher and textbook do.
See above. I'm just addressing simple logic. Theories
can't be proven by experiment. They can be disproven
by experiments.
You don't understand experimental science.
John Anderson
andysch
> > > You don't have to prove the assumptions to a theory. In
> > > an experimental science like physics, all that is required
> > > for a theory to be supported by experiment is that the
> > > assumptions and any logical deductions from them not
> > > disagree with any experiment. <...>
> >
> > If that were true, then every theory that is non-falsifiable would be
good
> > physics.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> > GR is little more than a collection of non-falsifiable claims and a
mountain
> > of math. The evidence is a minuscule portion of any GR course.
>
> You CAN falsify GR. It hasn't been done yet. The predictions
> of the theory have been tested. And they agree with experiment.
Binary pulsar data do falsify certain claims of GR (see data in Stairs' 1997
paper). Some GR claims are thereby falsifiable. But many, perhaps most, of
GR claims are not falsifiable.
> > > Theories are never proven in physics. They are supported
> > > by experiments or falsified by experiments. A theory
> > > that is supported today could become falsified by an
> > > experiment performed tomorrow.
> >
> > Tell me how you would falsify many of GR claims, such as that a photon
has
> > zero rest mass
>
> find a photon that has non-zero mass
You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR claims a
photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
> >or that gravity waves and black holes exist.
>
> You're missing a very important point here. No one
> can prove that something doesn't exist. You can
> prove that something does exist that invalidates
> the predictions of a theory.
You can prove that something doesn't exist in many circumstances. I can
prove that there is no object larger than the sun in our solar system, for
example.
In contrast, the GR claims about gravity waves and black holes are not
falsifiable.
> > > You need to learn something about the scientific method.
> >
> > I notice how you avoid addressing GR's assumptions and claims in your
> > posting. Just as every GR teacher and textbook do.
>
> See above. I'm just addressing simple logic. Theories
> can't be proven by experiment. They can be disproven
> by experiments.
Strawman here. I never made those arguments. You seem to be
misinterpreting falsification doctrine, which is not part of the typical
training of physicists.
> You don't understand experimental science.
Show me experiments that could falsify the basic claims of GR about the rest
mass of photons, the mass of objects approaching the speed of light, gravity
waves, black holes, and curvature of space. Most of GR isn't falsifiable,
and hence isn't science. Portions of GR that are falsifiable are being
falsified by the binary pulsar data.
Andy
Wayne Throop
::: experimental science like physics, all that is required for a theory
::: to be supported by experiment is that the assumptions and any
::: logical deductions from them not disagree with any experiment.
:: If that were true, then every theory that is non-falsifiable would be
:: good physics.
: and...@attglobal.net
: I agree.
No. He said "non-falisifiABLE", not just "not yet falsified".
If that were *the only criterion*, then unfalsifiable theories would
be wonderful things. But then, science restricts itself to falsifiable
theories, so that isn't the only criterion.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
T. Joseph W. Lazio
>>> GR is little more than a collection of non-falsifiable claims and
>>> a mountain
>>> of math. The evidence is a minuscule portion of any GR course.
You speak as if you have taken a course in GR. Would you care to
share at which university?
>> You CAN falsify GR. It hasn't been done yet. The predictions of
>> the theory have been tested. And they agree with experiment.
andy> Binary pulsar data do falsify certain claims of GR (see data in
andy> Stairs' 1997 paper). [...]
I have. I have no idea how you arrive at that statement.
andy> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR
andy> claims a photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
First, physicists no longer qualify mass by "rest." Mass is defined
to be the energy an object has when at rest with respect to the
observer. I'm sorry you don't like this terminology, but that's what
it is.
Second, GR makes no such claim. Maxwell's equations make that claim.
Third, I have previously cited experiments in which this claim was
tested. All of the experiments are consistent with the mass of the
photon being zero.
andy> You can prove that something doesn't exist in many
andy> circumstances. I can prove that there is no object larger than
andy> the sun in our solar system, for example.
andy> In contrast, the GR claims about gravity waves and black holes
andy> are not falsifiable.
Sure they are. GR makes specific predictions not only that
gravitational waves exist but also what their amplitude will be.
That's why LIGO is being built. That's why the 1993 Nobel Prize was
awarded to Taylor and Hulse, because the predicted orbital decay
agrees with the observations of PSR B1913+16 to within 1%.
>> You don't understand experimental science.
andy> Show me experiments that could falsify the basic claims of GR
andy> about [...] gravity waves, black holes, and curvature of space.
andy> Most of GR isn't falsifiable, and hence isn't science. [...]
I had started to type out a long list of experiments that have been
conducted, but then I went to MTW's _Gravitation_ and looked in the
index under "experimental tests of GR." There's a long listing in
_Gravitation_, which was published in 1973, and more experimental
tests have since been developed or are being developed. LIGO is being
built, Gravity Probe B is being built, sensitive lunar laser ranging
experiments continue to be conducted.
P.S. I'm still waiting for the reference you promised to limits on
the value of n in the 1/r^n relation in Newtonian gravity.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jla...@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
Roger Schlafly
news:m24rvrg...@patriot.net...
> andy> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR
> andy> claims a photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
> First, physicists no longer qualify mass by "rest." Mass is defined
> to be the energy an object has when at rest with respect to the
> observer. I'm sorry you don't like this terminology, but that's what
> it is.
> Second, GR makes no such claim. Maxwell's equations make that claim.
> Third, I have previously cited experiments in which this claim was
> tested. All of the experiments are consistent with the mass of the
> photon being zero.
But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its energy
in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say that the photon
has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive particle would
have infinite energy at the speed of light, so anything that really goes at
the speed of light must have had zero (rest) mass.
Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
rich hammett
> "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
> news:m24rvrg...@patriot.net...
>> andy> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR
>> andy> claims a photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
>> First, physicists no longer qualify mass by "rest." Mass is defined
>> to be the energy an object has when at rest with respect to the
>> observer. I'm sorry you don't like this terminology, but that's what
>> it is.
>> Second, GR makes no such claim. Maxwell's equations make that claim.
>> Third, I have previously cited experiments in which this claim was
>> tested. All of the experiments are consistent with the mass of the
>> photon being zero.
> But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its energy
> in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say that the photon
> has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
Lemme guess, you didn't read any of the references about the mass-energy
tensor.
> Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
> with saying that it travels at the speed of light.
No. You write very sloppily.
> Massive particle would
> have infinite energy at the speed of light, so anything that really goes at
> the speed of light must have had zero (rest) mass.
Do you think that your syllogism is the extent of current physics?
> Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
No they don't. They can even be stopped, apparently.
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
T. Joseph W. Lazio
RS> "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
news> m24rvrg...@patriot.net...
andy> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR
andy> claims a photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
>> [...]
>> Maxwell's equations make that claim. Third, I have previously cited
>> experiments in which this claim was tested. All of the experiments
>> are consistent with the mass of the photon being zero.
RS> But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its
RS> energy in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say
RS> that the photon has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
RS> Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
RS> with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive
RS> particle would have infinite energy at the speed of light, so
RS> anything that really goes at the speed of light must have had zero
RS> (rest) mass.
Let me guess. You haven't read what's in Jackson? As Jackson
explains in _Classical Electrodynamics_, the mass of the photon is
related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2. He
goes into a fair amount of detail and summarizes various experiments.
The limits really are quite stringent.
andysch
> Let me guess. You haven't read what's in Jackson? As Jackson
> explains in _Classical Electrodynamics_, the mass of the photon is
> related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2. He
> goes into a fair amount of detail and summarizes various experiments.
> The limits really are quite stringent.
Either you can explain it in your own words, or you don't know. No court
would even allow you to say what you do above.
References that someone must have demonstrated such-and-such somewhere are
not, and should not be, persuasive. It may be fashionable for institutional
learning, but it doesn't cut it anywhere else.
Andy
Bilge
>
>But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its energy
>in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say that the photon
>has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
>
>Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
>with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive particle would
historical one than it is a description of what relativity is stating.
The limits on the photon mass make it very small if it is not massless,
and certainly 100 years ago it looked that way. However, the photon
could have a mass and a couple of consequence are (1) gauss' law would
fail since charge would not be conserved, (2) it would be possible to
polarize the the photon in the longitudinal direction (along the momentum)
instead of only the 2 transverse directions, (3) similarly, the helicity
would not be a good quantum number - the polarizaion could reverse
as you cach or reced from a massive photon.
>have infinite energy at the speed of light, so anything that really goes at
>the speed of light must have had zero (rest) mass.
>
>Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
>
Photons travel at the speed of light because nothing indicates
they do not to a very high precicion. It's not totally impossible,
but relativity doesn't hinge on that.
andysch
news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Roger Schlafly said some stuff about
> >
> >But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its energy
> >in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say that the
photon
> >has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
> >
> >Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
> >with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive particle
would
>
> That is correct, except that the term "speed of light" is more of an
> historical one than it is a description of what relativity is stating.
> The limits on the photon mass make it very small if it is not massless,
> and certainly 100 years ago it looked that way. However, the photon
> could have a mass and a couple of consequence are (1) gauss' law would
> fail since charge would not be conserved, (2) it would be possible to
> polarize the the photon in the longitudinal direction (along the momentum)
> instead of only the 2 transverse directions, (3) similarly, the helicity
> would not be a good quantum number - the polarizaion could reverse
You'll have to make your arguments in more detail than this to be
persuasive. Linking mass to charge requires some unstated assumptions,
which need to be set forth.
It's worth noting that virtually no GR textbook clearly states its
assumptions at the beginning.
If photons have non-zero rest mass, and can be accelerated to the speed of
light, then that does confound GR.
Andy
Bilge
Re: GR's claims not falsifiable (was Question on general relativity) to usenet:
>In sci.astro Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> allegedly wrote:
>> Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
>
>No they don't. They can even be stopped, apparently.
Actually this is not quite fair to conclude (although, I admit I
haven't read up on that to which I assume you refer - recent claims of
stopping a photon in a few rubidium atoms or some such). It's not really
clear that this would qualify as the same photon. In a superconductor,
one may in principle stop a photon as well. The higgs mechanism gives the
photon a mass and leaves the cooper pairs as a composite higgs boson.
Roger Schlafly
> >>>>> "RS" == Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> RS> "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
> news> m24rvrg...@patriot.net...
> andy> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR
> andy> claims a photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
> >> experiments in which this claim was tested. All of the experiments
> >> are consistent with the mass of the photon being zero.
> RS> But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its
> RS> energy in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say
> RS> that the photon has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
> RS> Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
> RS> with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive
> RS> particle would have infinite energy at the speed of light, so
> RS> anything that really goes at the speed of light must have had zero
> RS> (rest) mass.
> Let me guess. You haven't read what's in Jackson? As Jackson
> explains in _Classical Electrodynamics_, the mass of the photon is
> related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2. He
> goes into a fair amount of detail and summarizes various experiments.
> The limits really are quite stringent.
Does that contradict anything I said? Yes, of course the mass is related
to electrostatic force fall-off. Those experiments are ways of testing
Maxwell's equations.
rich hammett
This isn't even spoon-feeding, this is a feeding tube for a patient on a hunger
strike!
rich
> Andy
Roger Schlafly
news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Photons travel at the speed of light because nothing indicates
> they do not to a very high precicion. It's not totally impossible,
> but relativity doesn't hinge on that.
Relativity does hinge on there being some maximal speed that we call
the speed of light. It is also the speed that electromagnetic waves
travel (in a vaccuum), as long as Maxwell's equations are correct.
How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
Bilge
Re: GR's claims not falsifiable (was Question on general relativity) to usenet:
>news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Roger Schlafly said some stuff about
>> >
>> >But there is no one observing a photon at rest and measuring its energy
>> >in that frame. It is almost a matter of definition to say that the
>photon
>> >has zero mass (or zero rest mass).
>> >
>> >Based on SR/GR, saying that a particle has zero mass is synonomous
>> >with saying that it travels at the speed of light. Massive particle
>would
>>
>> That is correct, except that the term "speed of light" is more of an
>> historical one than it is a description of what relativity is stating.
>> The limits on the photon mass make it very small if it is not massless,
>> and certainly 100 years ago it looked that way. However, the photon
>> could have a mass and a couple of consequence are (1) gauss' law would
>> fail since charge would not be conserved, (2) it would be possible to
>> polarize the the photon in the longitudinal direction (along the momentum)
>> instead of only the 2 transverse directions, (3) similarly, the helicity
>> would not be a good quantum number - the polarizaion could reverse
>> as you cach or reced from a massive photon. <...>
>You'll have to make your arguments in more detail than this to be
>persuasive. Linking mass to charge requires some unstated assumptions,
>which need to be set forth.
is curious, he can ask. On the other hand, you've been insisting that
you're a competent physicist. Or at least competent enough to be insisting
on credibility. There are no unstated assumptions. There are several ways
to show why charge conservation requires a massless photon, but the
simplest gives it to you free. Before I bother going to any effort
to give you something else you won't read and will misrepresent, give
me some indication you really want to know by reading enough physics
to pose a very specific question. I'm not about to explain both sides
of the argument just so you don't have to bow out.
>It's worth noting that virtually no GR textbook clearly states its
>assumptions at the beginning.
It also trusts the reader to be prepared for the level of
the book, as evidenced by missing phone numbers and addresses
by which the author(s) may be contacted. So far, you want to be
treated like a physicist and a graduate student, for example,
wouldn't even need to ask. But you seem to have developed an
attitude without finishing halliday & resnick. So, I have no
idea where to even start. I do have an idea of where to stop
fue to lack of interest.
>If photons have non-zero rest mass, and can be accelerated to the speed of
>light, then that does confound GR.
GR is a theory about gravity, not electromagnetism. It would treat
a photon like it treats all particles.
Bilge
>news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
>> Photons travel at the speed of light because nothing indicates
>> they do not to a very high precicion. It's not totally impossible,
>> but relativity doesn't hinge on that.
>
>Relativity does hinge on there being some maximal speed that we call
>the speed of light. It is also the speed that electromagnetic waves
>travel (in a vaccuum), as long as Maxwell's equations are correct.
>How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
That's a prime reason people are reasonably confident it's
massless. It doesn't have to be. All of those eqns can be modified.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Binary pulsar data do falsify certain claims of GR (see data in Stairs' 1997
> paper). Some GR claims are thereby falsifiable. But many, perhaps most, of
> GR claims are not falsifiable.
>
You are confusing falsifiable with falsified. ANY theory
CAN be disproved if you find an experiment that disagrees with
it. Anyway, what particular data that you're citing falsifies
GR? Last I heard, the physics community isn't rushing to
support your claim.
> > > > Theories are never proven in physics. They are supported
> > > > by experiments or falsified by experiments. A theory
> > > > that is supported today could become falsified by an
> > > > experiment performed tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Tell me how you would falsify many of GR claims, such as that a photon
> has
> > > zero rest mass
> >
> > find a photon that has non-zero mass
>
> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR claims a
> photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
>
Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
have zero invariant mass.
The SR relation is
E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
where E is the energy, p is the momentum and m is the invariant
mass. The GR relation just generalizes this. m is independent
of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
Take the measured energy and momentum of a photon and calculate
the invariant mass. If it isn't zero, then you have just
falsified relativity.
> > >or that gravity waves and black holes exist.
> >
> > You're missing a very important point here. No one
> > can prove that something doesn't exist. You can
> > prove that something does exist that invalidates
> > the predictions of a theory.
>
> You can prove that something doesn't exist in many circumstances. I can
> prove that there is no object larger than the sun in our solar system, for
> example.
>
That's a stupid example that involves enumerating a finite set of
objects. We're talking about falsifying a theory by showing that
there is no instance of one of its predictions. That involves
doing an exhaustive search of the whole universe.
Anyway, if you want to falsify GR all you need to do is
falsify a single prediction, not all of them.
> In contrast, the GR claims about gravity waves and black holes are not
> falsifiable.
>
The technology doesn't exist now, but we're talking about
the principle. You design some system that generates
measurable gravitational radiation and a detector that
can detect it, according to GR. If the measuring device
doesn't see the radiation, then you have falsified GR.
Similarly, you could in principle make a black hole or
just find an object that may be a black hole and measure
whether or not it looks like a GR predicted black hole.
> > > > You need to learn something about the scientific method.
> > >
> > > I notice how you avoid addressing GR's assumptions and claims in your
> > > posting. Just as every GR teacher and textbook do.
> >
> > See above. I'm just addressing simple logic. Theories
> > can't be proven by experiment. They can be disproven
> > by experiments.
>
> Strawman here. I never made those arguments. You seem to be
> misinterpreting falsification doctrine, which is not part of the typical
> training of physicists.
>
I'm not misinterpreting anything. And what I am discussing
is very much part of the training of physicists. I can
assure of that from personal experience.
> > You don't understand experimental science.
>
> Show me experiments that could falsify the basic claims of GR about the rest
> mass of photons, the mass of objects approaching the speed of light, gravity
> waves, black holes, and curvature of space. Most of GR isn't falsifiable,
> and hence isn't science. Portions of GR that are falsifiable are being
> falsified by the binary pulsar data.
>
See above. Falsifiablity is something that only needs exist
in principle. Any theory that makes predictions of the
results of experiments can be falsified. If you can't
actually do an experiment with current technology,
that doesn't make the theory non-falsifiable.
John Anderson
Gregory L. Hansen
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Binary pulsar data do falsify certain claims of GR (see data in Stairs' 1997
>paper). Some GR claims are thereby falsifiable. But many, perhaps most, of
>GR claims are not falsifiable.
I don't know about binary pulsar data. But all of GR's claims are
falsifiable. All predictions are observable things, like redshifting,
trajectories, and clock rates.
The fact that we're not able to do experiments that can test most of the
predictions of GR, especially the more outlandish ones, doesn't make it
unfalsifiable. It just makes for some predictions that we're not, at
present, able to test. And that's different from a statement like "God
exists, but He doesn't want to us find Him" which can never, not even in
principle, be tested.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
T. Joseph W. Lazio
andy> "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
andy> news:m2pueff...@patriot.net...
>> Let me guess. You haven't read what's in Jackson? As Jackson
>> explains in _Classical Electrodynamics_, the mass of the photon is
>> related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2. He
>> goes into a fair amount of detail and summarizes various
>> experiments. The limits really are quite stringent.
andy> Either you can explain it in your own words, or you don't know.
andy> [...]
I did just summarize it in my own words. "The mass of the photon is
related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2." The
current limits, IRRC, are that the mass of the photon is m < 1E-48 g.
brian a m stuckless
relativity)
in article <slrn9dhjb...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
```snip```
> >Linking mass to charge requires some unstated assumptions,
> >which need to be set forth.
>
> No, I have to do nothing of the sort.
> There are no unstated assumptions. There are several ways
```snip```
> GR is a theory about gravity, not electromagnetism. It would
> treat a photon like it treats all particles.
Dear Bilge,
The GR-tivity-'test' particle does NOT compare
with ANY other particles, in GR-tivity.
Yours truly,
`````arcsign````` apr 15, 2001
ps.
x. The North Star is north of the North Pole, --and don't
let any GR-tivity-'crank' dupe you into anything different.
^^^^^^^end of post.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> You changed the claim about "rest mass" to merely "mass". GR claims a
> photon has "zero rest mass". That is not falsifiable.
It is a falsifiable claim, as has been explained to you many times.
If the photon "rest mass" is non-zero than high energy
photons will have anomalous vacuum dispersions - very
strict bounds have been placed on such.
Steve Carlip
> Binary pulsar data do falsify certain claims of GR (see data in Stairs'
> 1997 paper).
The paper says no such thing. It reports very good agreement with GR.
> Show me experiments that could falsify the basic claims of GR about
> the rest mass of photons
GR makes no claim about the rest mass of photons. If, for example,
the gauge symmetry of electromagnetism were broken and photons
had a small rest mass, general relativity would not be affected at all.
> the mass of objects approaching the speed of light,
I assume you're talking about ``relativistic mass'' here. That, of course,
is a prediction of special relativity, not general relativity. It is routinely
tested every time an accelerator runs; you will find a test for electrons
with a ``relativistic mass increase'' by a factor of 20 million in Brown et al.,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 763. This effect can, in fact, be observed in an
undergraduate lab experiment; see Parker, Am. J. Phys. 40 (1972) 241.
> gravity waves
Apart from the binary pulsar tests, there are currently a number of laser
interferometric gravitational wave detectors now under construction.
If gravitational waves exist, they will be seen, at least by LIGO II and
LISA. If they don't exist, they won't be seen. How in the world do you
call that ``unfalsifiable''?
> black holes,
Look up ``advection dominated accretion flow.'' We observe objects
that have enough mass in a small enough volume that GR predicts that
they must be black holes, and when we look at them, we see energy
disappearing where the horizon should be and not coming out again.
If that's not good enough for you, wait a while. GR makes very precise,
detailed predictions about the gravitational wave forms from black
hole collisions, black hole-neutron star collisions, and other events
involving black holes. These will either be confirmed or not. Once
again, the theory is certainly falsifiable.
> Most of GR isn't falsifiable,
Well, lets look at other predictions:
-- Deflection of light in a gravitational field: tested at the .1% level by
VLBI observations. Note that GR doesn't just predict a single
number; it predicts an entire curve, deflection as a function of
the angle between the source and the Sun. Nearly the whole curve
has been tested, with angles up to more than 90 degrees from the
Sun, and agrees with theory. I've given you references earlier.
Did you read them?
-- Gravitational red shift and time dilation: tested in the lab, in aircraft
experiments, and in spacecraft experiments; all agree well with theory.
(See for example Vessot and Levine, Gen. Rel. Grav. 10 (1979) 181;
Alley, 32nd Annual Frequency Control Symposium, 1979; and
Buisson et al., Proc. of the 9th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval
Applications and Planning Meeting. The last is a report on the tests
of the built-in correction to the GPS system.)
-- The Shapiro time delay of light passing through a gravitational field:
tested at the .1% level. (See, for instance, Reasenberg et al., Astrophys.
J. 234 (1979) L219.
-- The de Sitter precession of the Earth-Moon system: measured at the
1% level. (See, for instance, Muller et al., in _Relativistic Gravity
Research_, ed. J. Ehlers and G. Schafer, Lec. Notes in Physics 410.)
-- The advances of the perihelions of Mercury (observed at the .3%
level) and Icarus (observed at about the 10% level---it's a harder
observation). I've given references elsewhere.
-- The absence of a Nordtvedt effect in the Moon's orbit. This shows
that gravitational potential energy contributes to gravitational mass.
That, in turn, means that any theory of gravity must be nonlinear;
simple modifications of the Newtonian force law are ruled out.
(See, for instance, Muller et al., in _Relativistic Gravity Research_,
ed. J. Ehlers and G. Schafer, Lec. Notes in Physics 410.)
-- The orbital decay of binary pulsars. I know you like to speculate about
other explanations. But remember, GR doesn't just predict a single
number; it predicts a curve of orbital decay as a function of time. We
have more than 25 years of observation of PSR 1913+16, and the
results fit this entire curve.
Other tests are coming up, including a direct search for frame-dragging
(Gravity Probe B) and a number of tests related to gravitational radiation.
Note that if you want to offer an alternative to general relativity, you have
to explain *all* of these observations. They are all quantitative, and all
(so far) agree with GR predictions. A theory that says, ``Deflection of
light is due to factor A, time dilation is due to factor B, the Shapiro time
delay is due to factor C, the de Sitter precession is due to factor D, the
perihelion advances are due to factor E, the Nordtvedt effect observations
are due to factor F, the decay of pulsar orbits is due to factor G, and factor
H will give frame dragging, and they're all independent of each other, and
by golly, what a coincidence, they all make the same predictions as GR''
will not be very credible.
Steve Carlip
and...@attglobal.net
>
> "david raoul derbes" <lo...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:Z1sB6.105$E4.5011@uchinews...
> <...>
>
> > It is nearly impossible to learn anything meaningful about
> > relativity without a willingness to tackle some mathematics.
>
> That's because relativity is little more than a mathematical exercise. The
> evidence for it wouldn't fill 5 pages. The best evidence, the binary pulsar
> data, shows that general relativity is unlikely even to be true.
>
You keep asserting this. Do you have reference in the peer reviewed
literature?
John Anderson
Richard Herring
> "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <jla...@patriot.net> wrote in message
> news:m2pueff...@patriot.net...
> > Let me guess. You haven't read what's in Jackson? As Jackson
> > explains in _Classical Electrodynamics_, the mass of the photon is
> > related to whether the electrostatic force falls off as 1/r^2. He
> > goes into a fair amount of detail and summarizes various experiments.
> > The limits really are quite stringent.
> Either you can explain it in your own words, or you don't know.
He knows. I know. Either of us could explain it in our own words,
but it would take several pages. It's far simpler to refer you to
the explanation given in a standard textbook. And frankly, given
the degree of cluelessness evidenced by the original question, I for
one see little point in wasting my time explaining why photon mass
implies non-Coulomb interaction between charges.
> No court would even allow you to say what you do above.
Non sequitur. This isn't a court. It's what purports to be a
scientific discussion. It isn't considered necessary to derive
standard results afresh at the start of every seminar; the
students are expected to be familiar with them. Those who are not
would be well advised to research the topic *before* speaking.
> References that someone must have demonstrated such-and-such somewhere are
> not, and should not be, persuasive.
*Evidence* is persuasive, but it's often not as portable as a
textbook. What is presented in court is not the body of the
deceased, but an expert witness, who testifies to what he deduced
from it.
> It may be fashionable for institutional
> learning, but it doesn't cut it anywhere else.
What a curious and restricted view of the world you must have,
if you reject all but the evidence of your own eyes.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Richard Herring
> "Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >
> > historical one than it is a description of what relativity is stating.
> > The limits on the photon mass make it very small if it is not massless,
> > and certainly 100 years ago it looked that way. However, the photon
> > could have a mass and a couple of consequence are (1) gauss' law would
> > fail since charge would not be conserved, (2) it would be possible to
> > polarize the the photon in the longitudinal direction (along the momentum)
> > instead of only the 2 transverse directions, (3) similarly, the helicity
> > would not be a good quantum number - the polarizaion could reverse
> > as you cach or reced from a massive photon. <...>
> You'll have to make your arguments in more detail than this to be
> persuasive. Linking mass to charge requires some unstated assumptions,
> which need to be set forth.
Have you read the excellent reference in Jackson to which
you have now been pointed several times?
> It's worth noting that virtually no GR textbook clearly states its
> assumptions at the beginning.
> If photons have non-zero rest mass, and can be accelerated to the speed of
> light, then that does confound GR.
Please explain *how* that would confound GR. You'll have to make
your arguments in more detail than this to be persuasive.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Richard Herring
> andysch said some stuff about
>
> >persuasive. Linking mass to charge requires some unstated assumptions,
> >which need to be set forth.
>
> No, I have to do nothing of the sort. If the person I responded to
> is curious, he can ask. On the other hand, you've been insisting that
> you're a competent physicist. Or at least competent enough to be insisting
> on credibility.
I think you're confusing him with someone else.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Photons travel at the speed of light because nothing indicates
>> they do not to a very high precicion. It's not totally impossible,
>> but relativity doesn't hinge on that.
>
>the speed of light.
It hinges on there being a maximal speed. That we call it "the speed
of light" is a historical coincidence.
>It is also the speed that electromagnetic waves
>travel (in a vaccuum), as long as Maxwell's equations are correct.
Yes, but relativity doesn't hinge on this.
>How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
Obviously, it would mean a modification of the Maxwell's equations.
Is this a problem?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Jim Carr
In article <3AD922...@attglobal.net>
and...@attglobal.net writes:
>
>Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
>The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
>mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
>so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
>have zero invariant mass.
Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
comes from elsewhere, say observation.
> E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
...
>m is independent
>of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly. (anon source via e-chain-letter)
Jim Carr
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote
in message news:slrn9dhf0...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
}
} >Photons travel at the speed of light, also by definition, more or less.
}
} Photons travel at the speed of light because nothing indicates
} they do not to a very high precicion. It's not totally impossible,
} but relativity doesn't hinge on that.
In article <RD3C6.771$cb7.26...@twister1.starband.net>
"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>
>Relativity does hinge on there being some maximal speed that we call
>the speed of light.
One regular poster to sci.physics.relativity, where I have set
followups because the charter discourages cross-posts such as
the one you continued, makes that point periodically. The
quantity "c" can be postulated independently of E+M and then
set by experimental observations of any of a wide range of
phenomena, such as the dispersion relation between E, p, and m.
>It is also the speed that electromagnetic waves
>travel (in a vaccuum), as long as Maxwell's equations are correct.
>How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
Very simply. It would have a speed slightly less than c that
varies with its energy. I have, when the cranks motivate me,
posted a "homework" problem jon this topic just to see if they
can calculate a simple result in SR. One version is to ask
what the speed of a 550 nm photon would be (or, better, the
difference between its v and c) if the photon mass was close
to the current experimental limit, say 1 x 10^{-16} eV/c^2.
You will see that the change cannot be measured. [No surprise
given that if it could be, the upper limit would be different.]
and...@attglobal.net
>
> ... followups to relativity newsgroup ...
>
> In article <3AD922...@attglobal.net>
> and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >
> >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> >have zero invariant mass.
>
> Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
> mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
> comes from elsewhere, say observation.
>
> > E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
> ...
> >m is independent
> >of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
>
> Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
>
You're replying to me, but I never wrote what you're replying
to. I would never say that rest mass is another name for invariant
mass. I used to say things like that because I understand the
distinction, but I got dissed for doing it here since
I might be confusing people who think relativistic mass
is a usefull idea.
I have always used the term invariant mass since then.
John Anderson
island
Jim Carr wrote:
> and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> >have zero invariant mass.
> Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
> mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
> comes from elsewhere, say observation.
> > E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
> ...
> >m is independent
> >of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
> Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
I personally understand this as... 'consistent with zero, (with respect
to the ideal), but to the present limits of experiment.'
Where the "ideal" only exists from the absolute perspective of mass-less
particles, since all "directly" measured light is to some degree
effectively delayed, and therefore, is always measured "condensed"...
energy-density-wise.
The ideal frame, (viewed from the perspective of an object of zero
mass), can never be directly observed, because it represents the view
point of a mass-less object, and so it is considered to be meaningless
to us.
What is important though, is that massive "characteristics" are observed
from every measure-ABLE frame, and that fact alone links the above
equated "momentum", (in the form of effective delay), to a more
condensed form of energy, to quantization. That is to say that a photon
takes on its quantum and massive characteristics at our less than ideal
level of observation, as the direct measured effect of "apparent" delay.
A photon, for example, is always directly measured to be delayed between
any two ideal points in space, due to the deviation that is caused any
and all affecting objects, including curvature along the photon's
minimal "null" curved geodesic path.
That means that the idealized "zero invarient mass" only exists from the
perspective of an absolutely unaffected object, which always moves at
c.
The underlying point being that the ideal frame does exist, i.e., is
meaningful to science, but isn't included into the most applicable
theory.
island
>
> ... note followups ...
>
> >How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
> Very simply. It would have a speed slightly less than c that
> varies with its energy.
AT LAST... someone with grey matter between their ears!
Bilge
Re: GR's claims not falsifiable (was Question on general relativity) to usenet:
>Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>> ... note followups ...
>>
>> "Bilge" wrote:
>
>> >How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
You've misattributed this statement. It wasn't mine.
---------------------------------
island
>
> island said some stuff about
> Re: GR's claims not falsifiable (was Question on general relativity) to usenet:
> >Jim Carr wrote:
> >>
> >> ... note followups ...
> >>
>
> ----------------------------------
> >> "Bilge" wrote:
> >
> >> >How a massive photon would fit into this picture, I don't know.
>
> You've misattributed this statement. It wasn't mine.
I HATE it when that happens!... sorry!
andysch
news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
>
> Jim Carr wrote:
>
> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
>
> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> > >have zero invariant mass.
It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
<...>
> That means that the idealized "zero invarient mass" only exists from the
> perspective of an absolutely unaffected object, which always moves at
> c. <...>
If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
Andy
James Hunter
andysch wrote:
Yes because Popper was a lamer party-line philosopher.
Coining such gibberish as "falsifiable" without
ever mentioning "truthifiable".
andysch
news:3AEA33AA...@Jhuapl.edu...
So some still do oppose Popper based on ad hominem attacks.
> Coining such gibberish as "falsifiable" without
> ever mentioning "truthifiable".
And spend nearly 100 years claiming as science something that is not
falsifiable and has never been demonstrated? Any time limit on these
non-falsifiable claims made under the guise of science?
Andy
James Hunter
andysch wrote:
*I* never claimed GR was science. I claimed Popper
was a semi-scientist (the ordinary, everyday, half-ass type).
Scott Fluhrer
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
> > ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
> >
> > Jim Carr wrote:
> >
> > > and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >
> > > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive
particle.
> > > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> > > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> > > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> > > >have zero invariant mass.
>
> It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim
of
> GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
> holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as
science.
"GR is not falsifiable" is, of course, nonsense. GR does make predictions
on how the universe should behave, and hence it is quite conceivable that an
expirement could find out that the universe doesn't behave that way. Some
of the predictions that GR makes actually fall into things we can actually
observe, such as:
- Rates of clocks on GPS satelites vs. clocks on Earth
- Shifts in perihelion advance
- Gravitational lensing
- Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
(to give a very partial list). The fact that the above observations show
the universe to behave, at least in these instances, to act as GR predicts
does not make GR unfalsifiable, but merely unfalsified.
--
poncho
Bilge
Re: GR's Not Falsifiable... (was a bunch of other junk) to usenet:
>"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
>news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
>> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
>>
>> Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
>>
>> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
>> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
>> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
>> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
>> > >have zero invariant mass.
>
>It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
>GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
Sure it is. Find a longitudinal polarization. I'm sorry you can't
comprehend what this means, but then again, if you were smart enough to
do physics you wouldn't post totally idiotic statements 100% of the time.
>holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
Under popper's insight, I find you are an idiot that sounds like ~~~BJ~~~,
despite the "idiot" part not being falsifiable.
[...]
>
>If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
Are you paid to be clueless and braindead or do you do it as a volunteer?
Gregory L. Hansen
Popper had a lot to say about "truthifiable" (not in that exact word...),
and why it's meaningless to say a theory is truthifiable. Truthifying a
theory was an old-fashioned notion in Popper's day.
Gregory L. Hansen
andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
>news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
>> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
>>
>> Jim Carr wrote:
>>
>> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
>>
>> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
>> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
>> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
>> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
>> > >have zero invariant mass.
>
>It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
>GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
>holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
You're saying that gravity waves and black holes have no measurable
consequences?
>If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
Not at all. But I think I might have to dispute your definition of
falsifiable, or else how you're applying it to GR.
andysch
news:9cdheb$tlr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
> > > ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
> > >
> > > Jim Carr wrote:
> > >
> > > > and...@attglobal.net writes:
> > >
> > > > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive
> particle.
> > > > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> > > > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> > > > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> > > > >have zero invariant mass.
> >
> > It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim
> of
> > GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves,
black
> > holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as
> science.
>
> "GR is not falsifiable" is, of course, nonsense. GR does make predictions
> on how the universe should behave, and hence it is quite conceivable that
an
> expirement could find out that the universe doesn't behave that way.
Most of GR's claims are not falsifiable. The standard physics curriculum
doesn't teach us this, but Popper's doctrine of falsification has been
well-known and accepted in intellectual circles.
> Some
> of the predictions that GR makes actually fall into things we can actually
> observe, such as:
>
> - Rates of clocks on GPS satelites vs. clocks on Earth
If GR made a specific claim about rates of clocks on GPS satellites, then
that claim would be falsifiable. But GR doesn't, because the orbits of GPS
satellites are too eccentric. Synchronization is done simply by resetting
the clocks periodically from earth using observed values here.
> - Shifts in perihelion advance
GR was developed to explain the Mercury perihelion advance. There are
Newtonian explanations as well. GR stumbles on earth's perihelion advance
and on data from binary pulsars.
> - Gravitational lensing
Please elaborate and explain why you think this is falsifiable.
> - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
> (to give a very partial list). The fact that the above observations show
> the universe to behave, at least in these instances, to act as GR predicts
> does not make GR unfalsifiable, but merely unfalsified.
GR's prominent claims about rest or invariant photon mass, gravity waves,
black holes, etc., are not falsifiable and thus are not science.
Andy
andysch
news:9cehae$64k$4...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
> >news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
> >> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
> >>
> >> Jim Carr wrote:
> >>
> >> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >>
> >> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive
particle.
> >> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> >> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> >> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> >> > >have zero invariant mass.
> >
> >It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim
of
> >GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves,
black
> >holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as
science.
>
> You're saying that gravity waves and black holes have no measurable
> consequences?
No, I'm saying that gravity waves and black holes are not falsifiable.
> >If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute
that???
>
> Not at all. But I think I might have to dispute your definition of
> falsifiable, or else how you're applying it to GR.
The meaning of falsification is well-established, but not taught in physics
curriculum. Falsification exists if a test can be devised to demonstrate
that a hypothesis is false. If no such test can be devised, then the
hypothesis is not science. Most GR claims are not falsifiable, and thus are
not science.
Andy
Paul Stowe
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>andysch said some stuff about
>Re: GR's Not Falsifiable... (was a bunch of other junk) to usenet:
> >"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
> >news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
> >> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
> >>
> >> Jim Carr wrote:
> >>
> >> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >>
> >> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> >> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> >> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> >> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> >> > >have zero invariant mass.
> >
> >It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
> >GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
>
> Sure it is. Find a longitudinal polarization.
That's an oxymoron, and a red herring...
> I'm sorry you can't comprehend what this means, but then again, if you were
> smart enough to do physics you wouldn't post totally idiotic statements 100%
> of the time.
And if you were smart enough to 'do physics', you'd be able to counter with
techincal arguments OF physics, NOT contentless ad homimen attacks...
> >holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
>
> Under popper's insight, I find you are an idiot that sounds like ~~~BJ~~~,
> despite the "idiot" part not being falsifiable.
And as [nearly] alway, I find you reply appropriate to your handle, -- Bilge --.
>[...]
> >
> >If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
>
>
> Are you paid to be clueless and braindead or do you do it as a volunteer?
>
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
>>news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
>>> ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
>>>
>>> Jim Carr wrote:
>>>
>>> > and...@attglobal.net writes:
>>>
>>> > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
>>> > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
>>> > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
>>> > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
>>> > >have zero invariant mass.
>>
>> It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
>> GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
>> holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
>
> You're saying that gravity waves and black holes have no measurable
> consequences?
OK, for sake of argument let's say that gravity waves are never measured.
Will ANYONE agree that this 'falsifies' GR, or would they claim that we
just don't have the technology to 'see' them?
As for 'black holes' how do you, from Earth, discriminate between a black
hole and a supermassive neutron star?
>>If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
>
> Not at all. But I think I might have to dispute your definition of
> falsifiable, or else how you're applying it to GR.
OK, IMO that's fair. Please describe the elements of GR that are 'independently'
both verifiable and thus, falsifiable.
(Note to Bilge this is how one 'should' critique a claim , on the technical merits
and lack thereof, NOT name calling...)
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Dan Riley
> The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
Bilge
>>Bilge
>> Sure it is. Find a longitudinal polarization.
>
>That's an oxymoron, and a red herring...
A massive photon must have a longitudinal polarization.
Show that it does not.
>And if you were smart enough to 'do physics', you'd be able to counter
>with techincal arguments OF physics, NOT contentless ad homimen attacks...
After the first couple of responses, I only bother including content
when the people to whom I reply, read it and respond with content. After
that, they get what they get. If you don't like it, pick one of the
options available.
>> >holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
>>
>> Under popper's insight, I find you are an idiot that sounds like ~~~BJ~~~,
>> despite the "idiot" part not being falsifiable.
>
>And as [nearly] alway, I find you reply appropriate to your handle,
>-- Bilge --.
That's why it's one of your options.
Bilge
>
>OK, IMO that's fair. Please describe the elements of GR that
>are 'independently'
>both verifiable and thus, falsifiable.
>
>(Note to Bilge this is how one 'should' critique a claim ,
>on the technical merits
> and lack thereof, NOT name calling...)
Only an idiot does so when it's proven to be a lusing proposition.
Just like physics.
James Hunter
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
Philosophers always have a lot of gibbish to spew, if not
about TRUTH, then about KNOWLEDGE, nothing new there.
And since the retards ALSO believe that there is
such a thing as new-fashioned and old-fashioned truth,
that's why they are often called RECURSIVE retards.
Gregory L. Hansen
If gravity waves and black holes are not falsifiable, that *means* they
have no measurable consequences.
>
>> >If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute
>that???
>>
>> Not at all. But I think I might have to dispute your definition of
>> falsifiable, or else how you're applying it to GR.
>
>The meaning of falsification is well-established, but not taught in physics
>curriculum. Falsification exists if a test can be devised to demonstrate
>that a hypothesis is false. If no such test can be devised, then the
>hypothesis is not science. Most GR claims are not falsifiable, and thus are
>not science.
I think you need to do a little more research. Experiments and
observations exist whose purpose is exactly to test for gravity waves,
black holes, and other claims of GR.
andysch
news:shzod15...@lnxcu9.lns.cornell.edu...
> "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > "Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
> > The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
>
> How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
My view is that most GR claims are not falsifiable. Some GR claims, like
its claims about binary pulsars, are falsifiable. And those claims were
falsified by Stairs' 1997 binary pulsar published data to the 2-sigma level
with respect to distance, and to a higher degree of certainty with respect
to masses (GR could only fit the data if the neutron star masses are an
identical 1.339, which is highly implausible).
Andy
Bilge
No problem.
Richard Herring
> >
> > > and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >
> > > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> > > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> > > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> > > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> > > >have zero invariant mass.
> It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
> GR is not falsifiable.
The point is false. Do you post here without reading the replies?
As several people have patiently (and otherwise) explained to you,
if photons had mass there would be measurable consequences:
light propagation in vacuo would be dispersive, electrostatics
would not obey an inverse-square law.
You may claim otherwise till you turn blue in the face, but
that won't make it so.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Jim Carr
|
| ... followups to relativity newsgroup ...
|
| In article <3AD922...@attglobal.net>
| and...@attglobal.net writes:
| >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
| >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
| >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
| >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
| >have zero invariant mass.
|
| Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
| mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
| comes from elsewhere, say observation.
|
| > E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
| ...
| >m is independent
| >of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
|
| Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
Google says you did, confirming what was on our server.
Must have been an oversight.
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they
come at you rapidly. (anon source via e-chain-letter)
Jim Carr
Your cross-post is off-topic in sci.physics.
Jim Carr wrote in <9cabhp$oi6$1...@news.fsu.edu>:
|
| ... followups to relativity newsgroup ...
|
| and...@attglobal.net writes:
| >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
| >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
| >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
| >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
| >have zero invariant mass.
|
| Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
| mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
| comes from elsewhere, say observation.
|
| > E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
| ...
| >m is independent
| >of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
|
| Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
In article <3AE9562F...@sundial.net>
island <isl...@sundial.net> writes:
>
>I personally understand this as... 'consistent with zero, (with respect
>to the ideal), but to the present limits of experiment.'
Your understanding is flawed. A mass of 0 eV/c^2 is no more of an
"ideal" than a mass of 10^{-20} eV/c^2 or any other value. The
only difference is that mass is non-negative so you cannot quote
+/- error bars on a value that is consistent with zero. Instead
you quote an upper limit on the mass at some confidence level.
>Where the "ideal" only exists from the absolute perspective of mass-less
>particles, since all "directly" measured light is to some degree
>effectively delayed, and therefore, is always measured "condensed"...
>energy-density-wise.
Gibberish.
Perhaps you could explain how that sentence applies to a
test of Gauss' Law. Hmmmm?
Jim Carr
"island" <isl...@sundial.net> wrote in message
news:3AE9562F...@sundial.net...
}
} ... followups to relativity, and physics newsgroups ...
}
} Jim Carr wrote in <9cabhp$oi6$1...@news.fsu.edu>:
} |
} | and...@attglobal.net writes:
} | >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
} | >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
} | >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
} | >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
} | >have zero invariant mass.
} |
} | Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
} | mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
} | comes from elsewhere, say observation. ....
In article <Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>It doesn't matter to me what one calls it.
Clearly it does not even matter to you if your statement is factual.
>The point is that this claim of
>GR is not falsifiable.
The mass of a photon is not a claim of GR, so your comment is
irrelevant to the topic of the thread.
>Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
>holes, etc.
Contradicted by the experiments being done to test those
predictions, including the ones already done to test the
ones included under "etc".
} That means that the idealized "zero invarient mass" only exists from the
} perspective of an absolutely unaffected object, which always moves at
} c. <...>
>If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute that???
I don't dispute that what "island" wrote is non-science.
That you confuse those remarks with how the mass of the photon
is tested shows that you have a way to go to understand what
some of us have been talking about.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Jim Carr wrote:
> |
> | ... followups to relativity newsgroup ...
> |
> | In article <3AD922...@attglobal.net>
> | and...@attglobal.net writes:
> | >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
> | >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
> | >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
> | >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
> | >have zero invariant mass.
> |
> | Not really. GR only predicts what a particle with zero invariant
> | mass will do and what effects it has. The mass of the photon
> | comes from elsewhere, say observation.
> |
> | > E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
> | ...
> | >m is independent
> | >of the coordinate system and it's zero for photons.
> |
> | Consistent with zero to the present limits of experiment.
>
> In article <3AE8F2...@attglobal.net>
> and...@attglobal.net writes:
> >
> >You're replying to me, but I never wrote what you're replying
> >to.
>
> Google says you did, confirming what was on our server.
>
> Must have been an oversight.
>
Okay, I 'fess up. I did write that. I guess that I didn't
like the exact way that I said it and was in denial.
John Anderson
Jim Carr
... followups to relativity newsgroup ...
My comments on other parts of this improperly cross-posted
thread will only go to the relativity newsgroup, which is
where this thread has belonged from the start.
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote
in message news:9cehae$64k$4...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
}
} In article <Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
} andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
} )
} ) > > and...@attglobal.net writes:
} ) > > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. ...
} ) > > >Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
} ) > > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
} ) > > >have zero invariant mass.
} )
} )It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this
} )claim of GR is not falsifiable.
Since "andysch" has ignored my observation that GR does not make
any prediction of photon mass, I will turn the tables and point
out that the fact that people do undertake to measure the photon
mass (see the PDG summary and reference list) means that, according
to "andysch", GR makes a prediction that is experimentally testable.
Hence GR is falsifiable based on his argument.
} )Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black holes, etc.
} )Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
}
} You're saying that gravity waves and black holes have no measurable
} consequences?
In article <bWAG6.39525$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>No, I'm saying that gravity waves and black holes are not falsifiable.
To make that claim you would first have to show that they have
no measurable consequences. Since they do, those predictions make
the theory falsifiable.
} >If it's not falsifiable, then it's not science. Does anyone dispute
} >that???
}
} Not at all. But I think I might have to dispute your definition of
} falsifiable, or else how you're applying it to GR.
>The meaning of falsification is well-established, but not taught in
>physics curriculum.
It is well established, which is why he assumed you must be using
some other, private, anomalous meaning for the term. And it was
part of the curriculum where I did my undergrad work, so your
last claim is also falsified.
>Falsification exists if a test can be devised to demonstrate
>that a hypothesis is false.
Hence GR is falsifiable, by those examples above, not to mention
others that one could list. (See Clifford Will's book for a
reasonably complete list of what you have to debunk to claim
otherwise.)
>If no such test can be devised, then the
>hypothesis is not science.
By "devised" you have to mean "theoretically" if you are going
to apply this strong Popperian version of what science is, since
Popper knows that there are experiments which may not be doable
with a particular technology at any given time.
>Most GR claims are not falsifiable, and thus are
>not science.
You would have to show that _no_ predictions are falsifiable
to reach that conclusion, so the mere fact that you dared only
write "most GR claims" shows you know that GR is falsifiable
under the standard definition you gave.
You condemn your own position by your choice of words.
Further, you have not shown why a negative result to the Taylor-
Hulse observation would not have falsified GR when it is clear
that the opposite is the case.
Jim Carr
... snip off-topic cross-post added by island ...
"Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:9cdheb$tlr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
}
} "GR is not falsifiable" is, of course, nonsense. GR does make predictions
} on how the universe should behave, and hence it is quite conceivable that
} an expirement could find out that the universe doesn't behave that way.
In article <sTAG6.39517$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>Most of GR's claims are not falsifiable.
You would have to shown that none of its _predictions_ are, in
principle, falsifiable to counter his statement concerning the
subject of this thread. That you say "most" shows you probably
know your claim is false even under a narrower version of the
definition (say, limited to practical experiments only).
For reference, your definition was
In article <bWAG6.39525$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
) Falsification exists if a test can be devised to demonstrate
) that a hypothesis is false.
so just by listing experiments that "can be devised" Scott has
met your requirement even under a very narrow meaning of the
term. See his list below.
You also explicitly admit that one of its predictions is
falsifiable when you write later on that
>GR stumbles on earth's perihelion advance
>and on data from binary pulsars.
even though you are wrong about the facts in those cases.
} Some
} of the predictions that GR makes actually fall into things we can actually
} observe, such as:
}
} - Rates of clocks on GPS satelites vs. clocks on Earth
>If GR made a specific claim about rates of clocks on GPS satellites, then
>that claim would be falsifiable.
And it does, so it is. Indeed, that claim was tested on the very
first test flight of a GPS satellite.
>But GR doesn't, because the orbits of GPS
>satellites are too eccentric.
Your belief that this uncertainty cannot be included in the analysis
is falsified by the papers that have been published is as amusing as
your failure to realize that the orbital differences are consistent
with what GR predicts. There would be no dependence on orbit if
there were no relativistic effects.
>Synchronization is done simply by resetting
>the clocks periodically from earth using observed values here.
An irrelevant comment, since it ignores the observed rates
and how large the corrections are compared to what would be
the case if GR were wrong.
} - Shifts in perihelion advance
>GR was developed to explain the Mercury perihelion advance.
False. Also irrelevant. If there were no advance in excess of
the Newtonian result, GR would be falsified.
} - Gravitational lensing
>Please elaborate and explain why you think this is falsifiable.
Because it fits your definition. Experiments _were_ devised
to look for this effect, including at large angles to the sun,
where GR makes a specific prediction. They agree. See Will.
} - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
>The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
Another example where you contradict your claim that GR cannot
be falsified since you admit that there are data that would
disprove GR if they had the features you mistakenly think they have.
Thus you fail on two counts: There are tests that would falsify
GR, even if you don't realize that is what they could do, and
there are tests that you, yourself, say could disprove GR, thus
showing that it is a falsifiable theory.
Jim Carr
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
}
} andysch said some stuff about
} Re: GR's Not Falsifiable... (was a bunch of other junk) to usenet:
} >
} > > > >Rest mass is a another name for invariant mass for a massive particle.
} > > > >The invariant mass of a photon is zero. Mass to me means invariant
} > > > >mass. Clearly photons don't have a rest mass in relativity,
} > > > >so GR doesn't predict that they do. It does predict that the
} > > > >have zero invariant mass.
} >
} >It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim
}
} Sure it is. Find a longitudinal polarization.
In article <9ceotb$ib5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>That's an oxymoron, and a red herring...
Not at all. The photon is "missing" one of th three polarizations
you would expect for a spin-1 particle as a result of being massless.
If a photon has mass (or if it is virtual), it will have a 3rd
polarization possibility -- so this is a way to test what "andysch"
mistakenly believes is a prediction of GR.
} I'm sorry you can't comprehend what this means, but then again, if you were
} smart enough to do physics you wouldn't post totally idiotic statements 100%
} of the time.
>And if you were smart enough to 'do physics', you'd be able to counter with
>techincal arguments OF physics, NOT contentless ad homimen attacks...
And he did, so he must be smart enough. His observation was
based on a deduction that "andysch" probably would not know
enough physics to recognize a technical argument without some
hand holding.
Jim Carr
Thanks for eliminating the cross-post, Paul.
In article <9cehae$64k$4...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
}
} In article <Y9qG6.38843$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
} andysch <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
} > It doesn't matter to me what one calls it. The point is that this claim of
} > GR is not falsifiable. Neither are GR's claims about gravity waves, black
} > holes, etc. Under Popper's insight, this stuff doesn't qualify as science.
}
} You're saying that gravity waves and black holes have no measurable
} consequences?
In article <9cepc9$eon$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>OK, for sake of argument let's say that gravity waves are never measured.
>Will ANYONE agree that this 'falsifies' GR, or would they claim that we
>just don't have the technology to 'see' them?
Sure, if we actually look with the required sensitivity. The
pulsar observations confirm a prediction of GR and simultaneously
lead to a predicted gravity wave strength on earth. If you
cannot see that with a suitably sensitive detector (designed
in accord with GR), GR is wrong.
Of course no one would say that it was falsified because you
did not see them because you did not look. You need to set
an experimental limit with a suitable confidence level that
contradicts the prediction.
vertner vergon
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:9df0tf$feg$1...@news.fsu.edu...
Vergon:
Well let's play a little stupid game -- and have a little brainstorming fun.
Let's assume that *every* body in the universe sublimates.
Let us further assume that the sublimation takes the form of very light,
very large diameter sub particles we call Quanta.
We also assume they travel in all directions at the same speed as light,
i.e., c.
Next we assume that as these Quanta approach another material body, every
nucleus in the body "sucks in" -- absorbs the quanta. The net result is that
the
Quanta are absorbed so fast that the body is drawn toward the approaching
Quanta. (To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
Since the body is drawn toward the approaching Quanta, it is also drawn in
direction from which the Quanta came. Thus it *appears* as though the
absorbing body is drawn toward the emitting body. Thus we have the
appearance of action at a distance.
Be advised, this tale has been mathematically quantized -- and it works.
So sue me :-)
Jim Carr
news:shzod15...@lnxcu9.lns.cornell.edu...
}
} "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
} >
} > "Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
} > > - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
} >
} > The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
}
} How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
In article <jYNG6.3667$kA1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>My view is that most GR claims are not falsifiable. Some GR claims,
>like its claims about binary pulsars, are falsifiable.
Ergo, GR is falsifiable. You are arguing against the subject
of this thread, not for it, so you agree with the people you
pretend to argue with. This is a characteristic of trolls.
Bilge
>Vergon:
>
>Well let's play a little stupid game -- and have a little brainstorming fun.
>
>Let's assume that *every* body in the universe sublimates.
That doesn't work. To play that game, you must anihilate everyone
with their anti-person, since characteristics like parity and time-reversal
do not make sublimation into a massless gas of energy possible.
>
>Let us further assume that the sublimation takes the form of very light,
>very large diameter sub particles we call Quanta.
For the reasons I mentioned, we cannot further assume this.
>We also assume they travel in all directions at the same speed as light,
>i.e., c.
>
>Next we assume that as these Quanta approach another material body, every
>nucleus in the body "sucks in" -- absorbs the quanta. The net result is that
>the
>Quanta are absorbed so fast that the body is drawn toward the approaching
>Quanta. (To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
>
>Since the body is drawn toward the approaching Quanta, it is also drawn in
>direction from which the Quanta came. Thus it *appears* as though the
>absorbing body is drawn toward the emitting body. Thus we have the
>appearance of action at a distance.
>
>Be advised, this tale has been mathematically quantized -- and it works.
And you only had to invent a new force to "suck in" the quanta to
do it so you could replace the old force. This goes downhill fast.
vertner vergon
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9fomt...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> vertner vergon said some stuff about
>
> >Vergon:
> >
> >Well let's play a little stupid game -- and have a little brainstorming
fun.
> >
> >Let's assume that *every* body in the universe sublimates.
>
> That doesn't work. To play that game, you must anihilate everyone
> with their anti-person, since characteristics like parity and
time-reversal
> do not make sublimation into a massless gas of energy possible.
Vergon:
That "logic" is less clear than Mississippi mud.
Let me paraphrase it for you. "That doesn't work because chickens have grey
feathers."
*********************
> >
> >Let us further assume that the sublimation takes the form of very light,
> >very large diameter sub particles we call Quanta.
>
> For the reasons I mentioned, we cannot further assume this.
>
*******************
Vergon:
ditto
*********************
> >We also assume they travel in all directions at the same speed as light,
> >i.e., c.
> >
> >Next we assume that as these Quanta approach another material body,
every
> >nucleus in the body "sucks in" -- absorbs the quanta. The net result is
that
> >the
>
> >Quanta are absorbed so fast that the body is drawn toward the
approaching
> >Quanta. (To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
> >
> >Since the body is drawn toward the approaching Quanta, it is also drawn
in
> >direction from which the Quanta came. Thus it *appears* as though the
> >absorbing body is drawn toward the emitting body. Thus we have the
> >appearance of action at a distance.
> >
> >Be advised, this tale has been mathematically quantized -- and it works.
>
> And you only had to invent a new force to "suck in" the quanta to
> do it so you could replace the old force. This goes downhill fast.
>
******************
Vergon:
Yes, it's the same force that gives us the strong force. It's caused by
particle
spin and is a vortex force. Following its characteristics mathematically
resulted
in a formula for the strong force that matches experimental values.
I'm glad you liked my idea and had such an open mind to it :-)
******************
Bilge
>
>news:slrn9fomt...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> vertner vergon said some stuff about
>>
>> >Vergon:
>> >
>> >Well let's play a little stupid game -- and have a little brainstorming
>fun.
>> >
>> >Let's assume that *every* body in the universe sublimates.
>>
>> That doesn't work. To play that game, you must anihilate everyone
>> with their anti-person, since characteristics like parity and
>time-reversal
>> do not make sublimation into a massless gas of energy possible.
>*********************
>Vergon:
>
>That "logic" is less clear than Mississippi mud.
>
>Let me paraphrase it for you. "That doesn't work because chickens have grey
>feathers."
and you can't use your opinion of what it states to find fault. I'm sorry
if what physics states and what you think physics states, differ, but all
you've found fault with is your example, which according to any physics
that I'm aware of, is not possible, even as a hypothetical.
[...]
>I'm glad you liked my idea and had such an open mind to it :-)
>
I assumed it was just like your idea that your opinion of what
physical theories state is sufficient to make it so - irrational.
Since you seem to have based the rest of your post on an irrational
idea, I didn't give it much chance of becoming more rational. You
could always try posting an idea based on rational assumptions or
at least assumptions that not based upon an obvious misunderstanding.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>"Dan Riley" <d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:shzod15...@lnxcu9.lns.cornell.edu...
>}
>} "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>} >
>} > "Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>} > > - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
>} >
>} > The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
>}
>} How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
>
>In article <jYNG6.3667$kA1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>>My view is that most GR claims are not falsifiable. Some GR claims,
>>like its claims about binary pulsars, are falsifiable.
>
> Ergo, GR is falsifiable.
Dennis: Not necessarily. Even when a prediction of GR does not meet with
observation, physicists could always invent ad hoc reasons for this (e.g., dark
matter.)
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: Not if the theory doesn't demand that those "measurable consequences"
be found--or relies on new hypotheses to explain why observation does not meet
prediction (e.g., dark matter.)
Dennis McCarthy
Jim Carr
>
>> To make that claim you would first have to show that they have
>> no measurable consequences. Since they do, those predictions make
>> the theory falsifiable.
>
>be found--or relies on new hypotheses to explain why observation does not
>meet prediction (e.g., dark matter.)
Which dark matter theory are you claiming has measurable
consequences but does not predict they can be found?
Every one listed in the PDG review predicts they can be found
and I even pointed you to two experiments claiming dark matter
has been found and giving a mass for it. Or are you talking
about some theory like Rado's, which does what you say?
(Note addition of particle physics newsgroup with followups
there for discussion of dark matter theories.)
Jim Carr
|
| "Dan Riley" <d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu> wrote in message
| news:shzod15...@lnxcu9.lns.cornell.edu...
| }
| } "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
| } >
| } > "Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| } > > - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
| } >
| } > The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
| }
| } How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
|
| In article <jYNG6.3667$kA1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
| "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
| >My view is that most GR claims are not falsifiable. Some GR claims,
| >like its claims about binary pulsars, are falsifiable.
|
| Ergo, GR is falsifiable.
In article <20010513174313...@ng-md1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
>
> Not necessarily.
Necessarily. Even the troll "andysch" agreed.
>Even when a prediction of GR does not meet with
>observation, physicists could always invent ad hoc reasons for this
>(e.g., dark matter.)
Please provide a non-evasive, detailed mathematical explanation for
how dark matter would explain the failure to see the slowing due
to gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar.
Any evasion on your part will be taken as an admission of ignorance.
andysch
> Someone whose identity DJMenCK deleted when replying
> to message <9dfruq$op4$1...@news.fsu.edu> wrote:
> |
> | "Dan Riley" <d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> | news:shzod15...@lnxcu9.lns.cornell.edu...
> | }
> | } "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
> | } >
> | } > "Scott Fluhrer" <sflu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> | } > > - Slowing down of large objects in mutual orbit
> | } >
> | } > The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
> | }
> | } How could the binary pulsar data disprove GR if GR isn't falsifiable?
> |
> | In article <jYNG6.3667$kA1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> | "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
> | >My view is that most GR claims are not falsifiable. Some GR claims,
> | >like its claims about binary pulsars, are falsifiable.
> |
> | Ergo, GR is falsifiable.
>
> In article <20010513174313...@ng-md1.aol.com>
> djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) writes:
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Necessarily. Even the troll "andysch" agreed.
Wrong. Most key claims of GR are not falsifiable.
Other key claims of GR that are falsifiable have been mostly falsified. For
example, it's apparently impossible to fit the data of both the Taylor and
Stairs binary pulsars to GR, no matter how farfetched the assumptions. If
you use a distance model for one, then that distance model doesn't work for
the other while still salvaging GR.
That the binary pulsar data tend to disprove GR is one of the worst-kept
secrets of academic physics.
> >Even when a prediction of GR does not meet with
> >observation, physicists could always invent ad hoc reasons for this
> >(e.g., dark matter.)
>
> Please provide a non-evasive, detailed mathematical explanation for
> how dark matter would explain the failure to see the slowing due
> to gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. <...>
Strawman. No one has to provide a substitute theory in order to conclude
that GR doesn't fit the data.
Andy
Bilge
Re: GR's Not Falsifiable... (was a bunch of other junk) to usenet:
falsifiable, and go on to conclude that you believe binary pulsar data
falsifies it. There's not much way to top that stunning display of logic
and triumph of reasoning over propaganda.
[...]
>
>Strawman. No one has to provide a substitute theory in order to conclude
>that GR doesn't fit the data.
I have a random number generator you can borrow for theoretical
predictions that need quantifies, if your ouija board doesn't work.
Logicalpike
> andysch wrote:
>
> > "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3AEA33AA...@Jhuapl.edu...
Delete.
> > > Yes because Popper was a lamer party-line philosopher.
> >
> > So some still do oppose Popper based on ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > > Coining such gibberish as "falsifiable" without
> > > ever mentioning "truthifiable".
> >
> > And spend nearly 100 years claiming as science something that is not
> > falsifiable and has never been demonstrated? Any time limit on these
> > non-falsifiable claims made under the guise of science?
>
> *I* never claimed GR was science. I claimed Popper
> was a semi-scientist (the ordinary, everyday, half-ass type).
Geesh, some nerve you have! Popper knew a lot about science. Being the
greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century, Popper had to be
up on his science. He knew a lot about probability theory as well. In
your book, was Faraday an ordinary, everyday, half-assed scientist?
Logicalpike
-
> GR was developed to explain the Mercury perihelion advance. There are
> Newtonian explanations as well. GR stumbles on earth's perihelion advance
> and on data from binary pulsars.
>
>
> Please elaborate and explain why you think this is falsifiable.
>
>
> The binary pulsar data tends to disprove, not confirm, GR.
>
> > the universe to behave, at least in these instances, to act as GR predicts
> > does not make GR unfalsifiable, but merely unfalsified.
>
> GR's prominent claims about rest or invariant photon mass, gravity waves,
> black holes, etc., are not falsifiable and thus are not science.
>
> Andy
You have piqued my curiosity, sir. can you please elaborate on your
claims about the falsifiability of the photon mass and of black holes?
andysch
news:b2c49a53.01052...@posting.google.com...
Popper is to physics what Godel is to math. Trouble is, most physics
curricula ignore Popper, and so relativity is filled with non-falsifiable,
and hence non-scientific, claims. And it's getting worse. For example, the
recent replacement of Einstein's view that "c" is the speed of light is
being replaced by a redefinition of "c" as a claimed maximum speed of
transfer of information, which is not falsifiable.
I earlier identified 6 key claims of relativity that are non-falsifiable,
and hence non-scientific. No one here has seriously disputed this. Just as
Godel rained on the mathematician's parade, Popper rains on the physicist's
parade. Might as well accept and address it.
Relativity's claim that black holes exist is not falsifiable, and hence not
science. There is no way to demonstrate the claim to be false. 1000 years
from now some will still be claiming that black holes exist.
Relativity's claim that photons have zero rest mass is not falsifiable, and
hence not science. A positive rest mass for a photon could never be
measured. 1000 years from now some will still be claiming that photons have
zero rest mass.
It's quite a luxury to be able to make non-falsifiable claims with impunity.
You can never be proven wrong! Too bad physics curricula do not include
Popper. Math curricula include Godel.
Andy
Kevin Aylward
news:b2c49a53.01052...@posting.google.com...
A philosopher of science, is just that, a philosopher of science. He might
well know a few things about science, but that don't make him a scientist in
the general sense of the word. As far as I have seen, he got a Ph.d in
philosophy and qualified to teach mathematics and physics in secondary
school. This hardly qualifies the man to in depth scientific work, for
example in QED etc. What real scientific work did he do?. So, no I would
certainly not class the man as a scientist.
--
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!",
GUI xspice, an affordable unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator
with Schematic Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
Kevin Aylward
news:8mdQ6.49519$4f7.3639384@bgtnsc06-
Your claims here basically depend on what is a definition of science.
Unfortunately, if we took this to the extremes, one might probably be able
to show that nothing at all is science. At the end of the day, this is the
real world. Its not perfect, sure you have got to put some constraints on
things such that the likes of astrology, but ultimately one is going to have
to live with the fact that knowledge, proof etc is always uncertain. You
just do the best that you can do. Its really an engineering approach to
physics, and for the large part, it seems to work. You do still have to get
the work done irrespective of whether you want to call it real science or
not. It just don't matter.
andysch
news:KBdQ6.4005$qs3.1...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Everyone agrees that non-falsifiable claims are not science. I haven't
heard anyone dispute this yet.
However, Popper's falsifiability doctrine is not part of most physics
curricula, so we have non-falsifiable claims permeating relativity. It's
long overdue for physicists to get rid of the key non-falsifiable claims
from relativity.
> <...> You do still have to get
> the work done irrespective of whether you want to call it real science or
> not. It just don't matter.
Non-falsifiable claims do not constitute meaningful "work". They are
obstacles to real science. The non-falsifiable claims need to be identified
and removed, so that more real scientific work can be funded and done.
Andy
Kevin Aylward
> >
> > Your claims here basically depend on what is a definition of science.
>
> Everyone agrees that non-falsifiable claims are not science. I haven't
> heard anyone dispute this yet.
>
> However, Popper's falsifiability doctrine is not part of most physics
> curricula, so we have non-falsifiable claims permeating relativity. It's
> long overdue for physicists to get rid of the key non-falsifiable claims
> from relativity.
>
> > <...> You do still have to get
> > the work done irrespective of whether you want to call it real science
or
> > not. It just don't matter.
>
> Non-falsifiable claims do not constitute meaningful "work".
You've a littly bit more to learn in this big bad world sonny.
>They are
> obstacles to real science. The non-falsifiable claims need to be
identified
> and removed, so that more real scientific work can be funded and done.
ahmmm, You are obviously not an engineer. We get things done all the time
without requiring a falseability test. I'm quite sure that there are many
individuals that need there arses wiped for them, however the rest of us do
indeed get on with the job, despite the fact that most of the time we only
have 50% of the spec. Such is life...
andysch
>
> "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:nKgQ6.47672$t12.3699946@bgtnsc05-
> > >
> > > Your claims here basically depend on what is a definition of science.
> >
> > Everyone agrees that non-falsifiable claims are not science. I haven't
> > heard anyone dispute this yet.
> >
> > However, Popper's falsifiability doctrine is not part of most physics
> > curricula, so we have non-falsifiable claims permeating relativity.
It's
> > long overdue for physicists to get rid of the key non-falsifiable claims
> > from relativity.
> >
> > > <...> You do still have to get
> > > the work done irrespective of whether you want to call it real science
> or
> > > not. It just don't matter.
> >
> > Non-falsifiable claims do not constitute meaningful "work".
>
> You've a littly bit more to learn in this big bad world sonny.
With all due respect, I think you could benefit from learning what
"non-falsifiable" means. I bet you never studied it in school, or since.
> >They are
> > obstacles to real science. The non-falsifiable claims need to be
> identified
> > and removed, so that more real scientific work can be funded and done.
>
> ahmmm, You are obviously not an engineer.
Your speculation is misplaced. I've worked as an engineer at places like
Intel.
> We get things done all the time
> without requiring a falseability test. I'm quite sure that there are many
> individuals that need there arses wiped for them, however the rest of us
do
> indeed get on with the job, despite the fact that most of the time we only
> have 50% of the spec. Such is life...
You misunderstand Popper's falsifiability doctrine. Not surprising, since
most science curricula ignore it.
The issue is capability of being falsified, not actually falsified. All
engineering claims are capable of being falsified. Few relativity claims
are, and the non-falsifiable and non-scientific claims in relativity are
increasing.
Andy
Kevin Aylward
> >
> > ahmmm, You are obviously not an engineer.
>
> Your speculation is misplaced. I've worked as an engineer at places like
> Intel.
>
> > We get things done all the time
> > without requiring a falseability test. I'm quite sure that there are
many
> > individuals that need there arses wiped for them, however the rest of us
> do
> > indeed get on with the job, despite the fact that most of the time we
only
> > have 50% of the spec. Such is life...
>
> You misunderstand Popper's falsifiability doctrine. Not surprising, since
> most science curricula ignore it.
Nope. You assume that I don't understand it.
> The issue is capability of being falsified, not actually falsified. All
> engineering claims are capable of being falsified.
In reality, nope. engineering has a lot of suck it and see. You don't
actually have any idea if it will work or not quite often. I'm not saying
that the is nothing you ever predictable correctly, my SuperSpice does that
quite well for electronicdesign, just that there is always quite a bit of
doubt always left over. Things are far to complicated now.
> Few relativity claims
> are, and the non-falsifiable and non-scientific claims in relativity are
> increasing.
>
> Andy
I am very, very, aware of the distinction on being falsifiable, in
principle, rather then being falsified in practice. It's the been there,
done that, wrote the book sort of thing 20 years ago. Your preaching to the
converted, or as they say in Scotland, dinny try and teach your granny to
suck eggs. _I_ addressed this in a thread a few months ago with my
instigation of "Is relativity a tautology", or words to that effect.
Interestingly though, I had never heard of Popper until this week.
The thrust here is, as I said before, Its all well and nice having ideals of
how things should be, but the reality is that you just have to get by with
what you've got.
andysch
<...>
> Interestingly though, I had never heard of Popper until this week.
I didn't hear about him in school either, or in popular literature
afterwards.
I urge you to read up and think about Popper's falsifiability doctrine.
It's very powerful, and has the same effect on relativity that Godel had on
math. I repeat: all engineering claims are falsifiable, while most
relativitiy claims are not, and thus not science.
> The thrust here is, as I said before, Its all well and nice having ideals
of
> how things should be, but the reality is that you just have to get by with
> what you've got.
We'd "get by" a lot better if relativitists admitted that most of their
claims are non-falsifiable, and thus not science.
Andy
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>"Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> wrote in message
><...>
>> Interestingly though, I had never heard of Popper until this week.
>
>afterwards.
>
>I urge you to read up and think about Popper's falsifiability doctrine.
>It's very powerful, and has the same effect on relativity that Godel had on
>math. I repeat: all engineering claims are falsifiable, while most
>relativitiy claims are not, and thus not science.
>
had this explained to you numerous times. That'll be all.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:7ziQ6.6194$qs3.2...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> <...>
> > Interestingly though, I had never heard of Popper until this week.
>
> I didn't hear about him in school either, or in popular literature
> afterwards.
>
> I urge you to read up and think about Popper's falsifiability doctrine.
> It's very powerful, and has the same effect on relativity that Godel had
on
> math. I repeat: all engineering claims are falsifiable, while most
> relativitiy claims are not, and thus not science.
>
I don't think I'm getting through to you. "dinny try and teach your granny
to suck eggs". i.e. an old granny has no teeth and has therefore been
sucking eggs for a very long time, i.e. does not require to be taught how to
suck eggs.
I read a paper on Poppers view, I am _extremely_ and thoroughly aware of all
it ramifications. I use the principle_all_the f'ing time, and have done so
for over 25 years. You are not telling me _anything_ new.
> > The thrust here is, as I said before, Its all well and nice having
ideals
> of
> > how things should be, but the reality is that you just have to get by
with
> > what you've got.
>
> We'd "get by" a lot better if relativitists admitted that most of their
> claims are non-falsifiable, and thus not science.
No. You have an unrealistic definition of the word "science" and/or what it
means. Poppers views are just that, his views. He does not own the concept
of what science is or is not. As I keep saying, yeah, I agree that it would
be nice and dandy to have all theories falsifiable, but this aint gonna
happen. _Any_ and every theory that says something exists, is not
falsifiable, so that definition of science would say there is no science
ever. This is the real world, not a pure mathematicl world, so we just do
the best we can, and live with it, blemishes and all.
andysch
> "andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> I read a paper on Poppers view, I am _extremely_ and thoroughly aware of
all
> it ramifications. I use the principle_all_the f'ing time, and have done so
> for over 25 years. You are not telling me _anything_ new.
Used it for "over 25 years," but had never heard of Popper until last week,
as you said???
Please state your understanding of Popper's falsifiability doctrine, and
give some examples. It only takes a few sentences. Example: the claim that
there is a maximum speed of information transfer is non-falsifiable, and
hence not science.
> > We'd "get by" a lot better if relativitists admitted that most of their
> > claims are non-falsifiable, and thus not science.
>
> No. You have an unrealistic definition of the word "science" and/or what
it
> means. Poppers views are just that, his views. He does not own the concept
> of what science is or is not. As I keep saying, yeah, I agree that it
would
> be nice and dandy to have all theories falsifiable, but this aint gonna
> happen. _Any_ and every theory that says something exists, is not
> falsifiable, so that definition of science would say there is no science
> ever. This is the real world, not a pure mathematicl world, so we just do
> the best we can, and live with it, blemishes and all.
In other words, you want to be able to claim that non-falsifiable assertions
can be science. Have I got it right?
No here has yet disputed that non-falsifiable claims are not science. Do
you?
Andy
andysch
news:ecjQ6.24$C4.1451@uchinews...
> In article <kKiQ6.50045$4f7.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"andysch" <and...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >"Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:7ziQ6.6194$qs3.2...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> ><...>
> >> Interestingly though, I had never heard of Popper until this week.
> >
> >I didn't hear about him in school either, or in popular literature
> >afterwards.
> >
> >I urge you to read up and think about Popper's falsifiability doctrine.
> >It's very powerful, and has the same effect on relativity that Godel had
on
> >math. I repeat: all engineering claims are falsifiable, while most
> >relativitiy claims are not, and thus not science.
> >
That's far too broad. Astrological claims generate measurable predictions,
but are not science.
Claims that there is a maximum speed of transfer of information generate
measurable predictions, but is not falsifiable and thus not science.
Andy